Under this heading, the Congress analyzes the development process of capitalism and the current state that it has reached, coming to the following conclusions: Along with the capitalist mode of production and relations, significant changes occurred in the surplus-value. Homes and streets have turned into ateliers that are tied to the capital. There are quantitative and qualitative changes in the mechanisms of capitalism. Because national markets stopped answering the needs of monopolies and due to the tendency of proliferation, consolidation, and centralization, the system inevitably turns towards the global markets. More importantly, we are facing a capitalism that controls the demands of society and therefore, to a significant degree, the production has become proportional to the demand. Meanwhile, however, in many areas, there is still anarchy of production. Lenin was wrong in his conclusions in regards to stock exchange and monopoly capitalism-free competition capitalism and therefore while some of the classics' theses on imperialism are still valid, some others have lost their validity. While the crises of capitalism are more frequent than before; imperialism shows not only quantitative changes but also qualitative; centralization and concentration exhibit new qualitative changes as a result of both production and distribution.
Therefore, by analyzing these new developments emerging in imperialism "We have to break away from incorrect approaches" (p.19) says the Congress Document.
Are these theses put forward in the name of discovering new things really that new?
Or, is it that the MKP arrives at the wrong conclusions in its understanding and interpretations of the developments in imperialism, a.k.a. monopoly capitalism, which came about "as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism," as Lenin observed? Are Lenin's and the classics' descriptions of the evolution of imperialism wrong? Or is it that the MKP's failure to understand this issue that is the cause of their troubles?